McCain’s comments reflect a deep misunderstanding of the priorities of the public. Sixty-eight percent of Americans oppose the war; 62 percent believe the next president should “try to end the Iraq war within the next year or two, no matter what.”

But the comments aren’t surprising, given that McCain has supported keeping troops in Iraq for 100 to a million years. Earlier this week, McCain pledged to send an unlimited number of troops to Iraq …

For McCain, there is no end in sight in Iraq, but that’s “not too important” to him.

Democrats and allies are jumping on John McCain for telling NBC’s Matt Lauer that “it’s not important” when troops return from Iraq. Period. There’s no because. There’s almost never a because when one side seizes on the comments of another. The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn’t the issue; instead, it’s the casualties they receive. The differences between McCain and Obama are clear enough; Obama wants a bare-bones U.S. presence in Iraq, and McCain is willing to tolerate a much larger one; Obama believes that the presence of U.S. troops exacerbates the tension and gives Iraqis a crutch to delay political reconcilliation. McCain does not. One would think that those differences are a sufficient basis upon which to launch a political attack. Instead, though, in a conference call with reporters, in remarks by Democrats like Joe Biden, in a blistering statement by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, McCain is being portrayed as, inter alia, not caring one whit about casualties and deaths and chaos and certainly not about the families of troops who dealt with deployment after deployment. That’s my reading, anyway.

[D]o Americans want a neo-empire in the Middle East? Do they want US troops permanently stationed in Iraq with up to 60 permanent bases? That’s what the Bush administration wants to foist onto Iraq; and that’s what McCain believes in. The viral video now buzzing on the Internets is not a gaffe, it’s the truth. McCain would love to see U.S. troops stationed peacefully in Iraq for the foreseeable future. To him it does not matter when they come home. What matters is that the casualty rate get low enough to persuade Americans they shouldn’t care about another expansion of American empire. In fact, the entire debate about bringing them home is puzzling and frustrating to McCain. After all, why should we bring them home when being there for ever is the point?

It wasn’t WMDs or Saddam’s threat that motivated this war, we now understand, so much as the capacity to forward station U.S. troops in an oil-rich region and help contain Iran. Is this a good idea? That’s what the Iraqis are now furiously debating. And it’s what Americans should be furiously debating in this campaign. It’s the biggest difference between the two candidates and it couldn’t be more important.

Whether you think McCain’s comment was a heartless gaffe or pragmatic judgment, Sullivan’s point seems to hit the heart of the matter.

McCain obviously doesn’t get it. He didn’t get it
on Vietnam and he doesn’t get it on Iraq. He’s a
military man from a military family. Every dollar
he’s ever earned came from the federal government
He doesn’t get it on the economy either. If he
wins because of his romantic maverick image, then
Americans don’t get it either.

I am soooooo tired of the lies the bushiesand the rest of the republicans have been telling us. McCain, made a gaffe, he wasn’t supposed to tell Matt Lauer the truth for heavens sake. I hope the Dems PUMMEL him for his remarks!!

It has become very clear to me that the “Americanization of Iraq” was intended all along. What better way to contain Iran than with a completely pro-American state on it’s border. I think Iraq seemed to Bush and cronies like a perfect place for our American Culture to work it’s magic. I expect they believe the “beast” will be tamed eventually, and then we can all settle down peacefully to 100 years of American influence in the Mid-East.

McCain is so out of touch with reality it’s scary. There will always be casulties if there are American troops in Iraq. THEY DON’T WANT US THERE. Our mere presence will continue to incite violence. His comparison of troops in Iraq to those in Japan and Germany is ludicrous. We are not looked upon as occupiers in those countries.

When will the US learn to butt out of other countries? You’d think someone would learn from our past support of the Shah of Iran and Osama Bin Laden. I really fear for our country if McCain gets elected.

There’s another element to McCain’s ridiculous statement that deserves mention. First, it’s very important to the troops, their families and friends, when the troops come home. Second, it’s very important to the U.S. economy when the troops come home since we’re spending billions of dollars a month on this war. Third, it’s very important to the Iraqi people when the troops come home, considering that they have indicated that they want our troops out through polls, their politicians, and by shooting at our troops regularly. Finally, it’s extremely important to the American public when the troops come home considering that poll after poll has indicated that the majority want the troops home.

McCain’s ideas are too extreme and out-of-touch with the clear preferences of our troops, their friends and family, and the American and Iraqi people. When will the media start acknowledging that fact?

It was neither a heartless gaffe nor a pragmatic judgement. It was sheer ignorance and stupidity. There are absolutely no parallels with the original reasons for establishing bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea and maintaining bases in Iraq.

McCain says “what’s important is the casualties in Iraq… American casualties and the ability to withdraw.” Sullivan takes McCain’s statement that “the ability to withdraw” is important, and uses that to somehow concludes that McCain wants “US troops permanently stationed in Iraq with up to 60 permanent bases.”

That doesn’t logically follow. McCain is trying to bring the focus to a metric that matters (the level of violence) away from a metric that doesn’t matter (how long we’re there). To construe his attempt to inject reasonable measurements into the debate as a strong advocacy for permenant bases is dishonest. McCain hasn’t said that he’s opposed to a long term presence, but neither has he advocated for one — he’s simply said that we should approach this with an open mind and allow our future course to be determined by facts on the ground and state relations with the Iraqi government.

To prove McCain’s point, how many people realize that after 50 years of stationing troops in Korea that we are now going to built even more permanent bases, extend the tour of duty to 3 years from one year and allow dependents into the country. There is no sign we will ever come home. If we can have that kind of presence there for whatever reason why not Iraq, where something is going on.

When Senator McCain was quoted earlier as not minding if American troops stayed in Iraq for 99 years, his defenders said he was taken out of context because McCain had included the condition that the Iraqis not do anything to kill or injure US troops. Actually, that makes McCain worse. Then, and in this more recent attempt, he tries to deceive the American people that we COULD just leave our troops there and Iraqis would not lift a finger to harm them. Anyone who keeps trying to convince us of that nonsense might have profound mental insufficiencies or no acquaintance with this kind of warfare, neither of which seems to be the case with John Mc Cain. The only other possibility is that this is intended to deceive us of what the real choices are. McCain’s snake oil express has been on this route several times, so it is not just a gaffe.
Marvant Duhon
Bloomington, Indiana

Indeed Mr. Sullivan is the most accurate. Unfortunately, Obama also wants U.S. troops in the same region, for the same reasons. The only difference is the number of troops deemed necessary. Someone needs to start asking Obama why there ought to be any presence whatsoever now that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been marginalized.

Harkening back to the context of his earlier comment about ‘100 years’… it may be ‘not too important’ when they come home to him but it is important to the soldiers on constant rotation and their families and the Americans and our economy who is footing the bill for this Republican-neocon misadventure to $12 billion a month, quickly adding up to trillions which will be on the backs of our grandchildren.

Don’t we already have bases in Kuwait? And for that matter, the entire surrounding region? Bases in Afghanistan would be better than Iraq. An eye on Pakistan is essential. They got terrorists and nukes. Iraq just has a civil war. Much less of a worry considering the power of their neighbors. (I do not believe the Sauds will allow Iran to take control of the whole country should we vanish)

I agree with Andrew Sullivan, and I think that McCain’s comments belie the truth that was always there: get us onto permanent bases in the Middle East, at any cost. All the lies about WMDs, all the supposed calls for liberation of the Iraqi people, was all for this.

With gas at $4.00 and the high cost of energy rippling through the economy, you’d think even the liberals would wake up to the fact that protection of our access to energy ought to be a foremost objective of our foreign policy, even if it means leaving troops in the Middle East indefinitely. Our standard of living isn’t free.

McCain did us a favor. He just admitted the real reason for our intervention in Iraq, the extension of an American Empire. “Operation Iraqui Freedom” was just baloney as a few of us thought from the start.

You are right, a real debate on the idea of an American Empire is needed. Why do we need ANY troops in Korea, Japan or Germany. If we are there to protect them, what or who are we protecting them from?. God knows we have sufficient air and naval power to protect ourselves and that is all I care to protect anyhow.

Since WW2 the American public has bought into our vaunted superiority in every area and the politicians pander to this expensive expression of irrational hubris.
Just think what could be done in this country with the funds now spent by the military-industrial-congressional complex. Our infrastructure needs work yet we elect to destroy bridges overseas and then turn around and rebuild them while our own are falling down.

Maybe, just maybe, the present economic mess we are in today will encourage a serious look at our profligate and arrogant international policies.

i rarely find myself in agreement with sullivan, but I sure do on this point. Let’s hope the easily manipulated media continue to focus the public’s attention on this fundamental issue and difference between the two candidates. To be or not to be an empire..that is the question

This debate is meaningless. We went to war – right or wrong – and now you want to talk about just tossing in the towel and coming home? To what end? It is our responsibility to help the Iraqi’s establish a stable government – democracy or theocracy – whichever THEY choose.

We abosolutely CAN NOT just throw up our hands and say “Sorry, we made a mistake – over to you insane guys with the guns”. What the hell kind of solution is that? What will be the long term result of that action? No one will have any respect for Americans anywhere. And why should they? The majority of Americans approved of invading Iraq and now, when the going gets tough, they forget that Americans, at our core, stand for truth and justice. The truth is: we made a mistake when we invaded. Justice is making that mistake right.

Leaving before the job is done is wrong – period. We owe Iraq and the world a stable government in Irag. Let’s do the right thing, the American thing, and stand for truth and justice.

Does it? I find the assumption that there is an American Empire damaging and offensive. Empires, by their nature, are maintained without the consent of the governed, and I do not think we can be accused of being disrespectful of that consent in the nations in which we have troops. To suggest that for example American troops in South Korea, who risk their lives to guarantee South Korean security, are present to dominate the nation is to smear them.

It does seem to me that one of the main arguments for avoiding a long-term stay in Iraq is that, whatever our intent, it will be interpreted by nations with a colonial past as evidence of empire, even if we stay with the intent of the governed. We must be concerned with appearance as well as reality. Sadly, after our failure in Iraq, some will now ascribe any departure to a failure to achieve imperial ambitions; even so, a departure is better than none.

Rather, I’m inclined to share Marc Ambinder’s concerns. I say this as an Obama supporter, a Democrat, and someone who believes we should probably cut our losses in Iraq. The misrepresentation or sensationalization or decontextualization of a candidate’s comments may be politically convenient, but it seriously harms our political discourse. It deprives the voters of the information they need to make a good decision and it forces a certain defensive cowardice on the candidates, who find themselves saying stupid things and refraining from saying what they believe to preserve their chance at getting elected. That was true when Republicans unjustly accused Obama of being an appeaser because he favored negotiations; Obama was forced to back pedal on his desire to talk as a result.

We can and should question whether John McCain can achieve his goal. We can and should question whether it’s sensible to leave American troops in the region. But we should not distort his position and intent.

For McCain to compare the situation in Iraq with South Korea is rediculous. I served at K-9 Air Base from January to June in 1952 20 miles or so from Pusan. The country was a mess, was still at war, and yet it was perfectly safe, even then to walk through the streets and markets (such as they were) in Pusan, Taegu and Seoul. Either McCain knows better or he just does not understand the different histories of Japan and Europe in WWII and Korea in the Korean Conflict. It is going to be many years before American troop will be able to walk safely upon the street of Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities.